Lots of different points of view out there.. If only there was a way to allow them all to freely exist without having an enormous federal govt imposing just a few of them on everyone.

I’m curious what the few federal government viewpoints are that are imposed on evryone?

Well I’m just saying that it’s inpossible for everyone’s views to be represented adequately (define that however you want). Limiting the size and scope of the fed govt might provide a better shot at doing so.

Lots of different points of view out there.. If only there was a way to allow them all to freely exist without having an enormous federal govt imposing just a few of them on everyone.

I’m curious what the few federal government viewpoints are that are imposed on evryone?

Well I’m just saying that it’s inpossible for everyone’s views to be represented adequately (define that however you want). Limiting the size and scope of the fed govt might provide a better shot at doing so.

Exactly how do you see that working? What connection do you see between limiting federal government and allowing every view to be represented?

Again, subjective. You guys think the Clintons are saints? Or is there some acceptable threshold of corruption for our politicians?

Has Hillary ever been indicted? Found to have commited perjury? Or obstruct Justice? Lose civil suits or declare bankruptcy or refuse to pay vendors for services provided?

It helps having the FBI bail you out..

How about her role in Libya, Syria, Iraq.. and the millions of lives that have either been negatively impacted or flat out ended? Or the resulting migrant crisis?

Clinton foundation shenangans?

She should up for sainthood any day now

Care to enumerate those Clinton foundation shenanigans? As a non-profit charity they get special scrutiny in order to maintain their non-profit status and yet, repubes in charge and no indictments but chants of lock her up. Keep trying. Buh buh buh Benghazi. And all that other shit, her pure genius is responsible. Sounds like you don’t have anything specific so you’re just tossing shit?

Again, subjective. You guys think the Clintons are saints? Or is there some acceptable threshold of corruption for our politicians?

Has Hillary ever been indicted? Found to have commited perjury? Or obstruct Justice? Lose civil suits or declare bankruptcy or refuse to pay vendors for services provided?

It helps having the FBI bail you out..

How about her role in Libya, Syria, Iraq.. and the millions of lives that have either been negatively impacted or flat out ended? Or the resulting migrant crisis?

Clinton foundation shenangans?

She should up for sainthood any day now

Care to enumerate those Clinton foundation shenanigans? As a non-profit charity they get special scrutiny in order to maintain their non-profit status and yet, repubes in charge and no indictments but chants of lock her up. Keep trying. Buh buh buh Benghazi. And all that other shit, her pure genius is responsible. Sounds like you don’t have anything specific so you’re just tossing shit?

If someone on here said they were voting for male, white, christian candidates only then they would be attacked as misogynist, racist, religious zealots. Say the opposite and it seems fine in this echo chamber.

How many female senators are there? Governors? How many non-christian? How many non-white?

Lots of different points of view out there.. If only there was a way to allow them all to freely exist without having an enormous federal govt imposing just a few of them on everyone.

I’m curious what the few federal government viewpoints are that are imposed on evryone?

Well I’m just saying that it’s inpossible for everyone’s views to be represented adequately (define that however you want). Limiting the size and scope of the fed govt might provide a better shot at doing so.

I guess I’m a little lost on the term ’views’ because it’s vague. And wouldn’t a smaller federal government make the scope of views smaller as well?

“Should I stay or should I go now?” That question, posed by the eminent political philosophers known as the Clash, is one that confronts any Republican with a glimmer of conscience. You used to belong to a conservative party with a white-nationalist fringe. Now it’s a white-nationalist party with a conservative fringe. If you’re part of that fringe, what should you do?

Veteran strategist Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, is the latest Republican to say “no more.” Recently he issued an anguished Twitter post: “29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of the Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life,” he wrote. “Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.”

Schmidt follows in the illustrious footsteps of Post columnist George F. Will, former senator Gordon Humphrey, former representative (and Post columnist) Joe Scarborough, Reagan and Bush (both) aide Peter Wehner, and other Republicans who have left the party. I’m with them. After a lifetime as a Republican, I re-registered as an independent on the day after Donald Trump’s election.

Explaining my decision, I noted that Trumpkins “want to transform the GOP into a European-style nationalist party that opposes cuts in entitlement programs, believes in deportation of undocumented immigrants, white identity politics, protectionism and isolationism backed by hyper-macho threats to bomb the living daylights out of anyone who messes with us.” I still hoped then that traditional conservatives might eventually prevail, but, I wrote, “I can no longer support a party that doesn’t know what it stands for — and that in fact may stand for positions that I find repugnant.”

I am more convinced than ever that I made the right decision. The transformation I feared has taken place. Just look at the reaction to President Trump’s barbarous policy of taking children away from their parents as punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegally entering the country. While two-thirds of Americans disapproved of this state-sanctioned child abuse, forcing the president to back down, a majority of Republicans approved. If Trump announced he were going to spit-roast immigrant kids and eat them on national TV (apologies to Jonathan Swift), most Republicans probably would approve of that, too. The entire Republican platform can now be reduced to three words: whatever Trump says.

And yet there are still principled #NeverTrump conservatives such as Tom Nichols and Bill Kristol who are staying in the party. And they have a good case to make. Kristol, for one, balks “at giving up the Republican party to the forces of nativism, vulgar populism, and authoritarianism.” As he notes, “It would be bad for the country if one of our two major parties went in this direction.”

No one anticipated Trump’s takeover. It’s possible, these Republicans argue, that we might be equally surprised by his downfall. Imagine what would happen if special counsel Robert S. Mueller III found clear evidence of criminality or if Trump’s trade wars tanked the economy. I’m not saying that’s likely to happen, but if it does, it might — just might — shake the 88 percent GOP support that Trump currently enjoys. That, in turn, could open the way for a credible primary challenge that wouldn’t deny him the nomination but that — like Gene McCarthy in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1976 and Pat Buchanan in 1992 — could help to defeat him in the general election and wrest the party from his grasp.

Personally, I’ve thrown up my hands in despair at the debased state of the GOP. I don’t want to be identified with the party of the child-snatchers. But I respect principled conservatives who are willing to stay and fight to reclaim a once-great party that freed the slaves and helped to win the Cold War. What I can’t respect are head-in-the-sand conservatives who continue to support the GOP by pretending that nothing has changed.

They act, these political ostriches, as if this were still the party of Ronald Reagan and John McCain rather than of Stephen K. Bannon and Stephen Miller — and therefore they cling to the illusion that supporting Republican candidates will advance their avowed views. Wrong. The current GOP still has a few resemblances to the party of old — it still cuts taxes and supports conservative judges. But a vote for the GOP in November is also a vote for egregious obstruction of justice, rampant conflicts of interest, the demonization of minorities, the debasement of political discourse, the alienation of America’s allies, the end of free trade and the appeasement of dictators.

That is why I join Will and other principled conservatives, both current and former Republicans, in rooting for a Democratic takeover of both houses in November. Like postwar Germany and Japan, the Republican Party must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.

Having Trump and Clinton as your 2 choices suggest that both sides have lowered the bar. It just so happens Murica should have voted for the least scummy ... or here's an idea, field better candidates.

Having Trump and Clinton as your 2 choices suggest that both sides have lowered the bar. It just so happens Murica should have voted for the least scummy ... or here's an idea, field better candidates.

But society in general the bar is much lower...

or Obama raised the bar too high for just about any Democratic candidate. Trump, the candidate, is just a result of jealousy that white America felt towards a dark skinned president.

Having Trump and Clinton as your 2 choices suggest that both sides have lowered the bar. It just so happens Murica should have voted for the least scummy ... or here's an idea, field better candidates.

But society in general the bar is much lower...

or Obama raised the bar too high for just about any Democratic candidate. Trump, the candidate, is just a result of jealousy that white America felt towards a dark skinned president.

Having Trump and Clinton as your 2 choices suggest that both sides have lowered the bar. It just so happens Murica should have voted for the least scummy ... or here's an idea, field better candidates.

But society in general the bar is much lower...

or Obama raised the bar too high for just about any Democratic candidate. Trump, the candidate, is just a result of jealousy that white America felt towards a dark skinned president.

Having Trump and Clinton as your 2 choices suggest that both sides have lowered the bar. It just so happens Murica should have voted for the least scummy ... or here's an idea, field better candidates.

But society in general the bar is much lower...

or Obama raised the bar too high for just about any Democratic candidate. Trump, the candidate, is just a result of jealousy that white America felt towards a dark skinned president.

(Reposting here to spread the word. And don't forget, it's not possible to vote by text no matter how many times the Russian bots say it.)

Russian Bots Linked To Viral Twitter Attacks On ‘Hateful’ Dems

Is this a preview of stepped-up activity before the midterm elections

It what may be an early onslaught of Kremlin-linked Twitter attacks ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, Russia bots appear to be fueling a wave of criticism targeting Democrats over alleged intimidation in political confrontations and a lack of “civility,” according to bot trackers.

Attacks with the hashtag #WalkAway purport to be from a “grassroots” wave of one-time Democrats who have left the party in part because they say they are so incensed by the hateful and divisive behavior of party members. The message is to “walk away” from ugly confrontations, “intolerance” and hate — and from the Democratic Party.